HHHhhmm? I'll have to check but it seems to me that the DVD's that we've bought can be set up to show in either wide screen or full screen at the viewers discretion.

You're a real troublemaker, you know that?

Anyway, you're right in that some DVDs have both versions on the disk, but my observation is that there aren't many. It depends on how long the movie is, how many extras were added to the disk and so on.

Those who buy disks that go both ways probably fall into a whole other category of "sophistication"! ;-)

Eric, a few nights ago, I was watching "Raiders of the Lost Ark," shown in wide-screen format on DVD. Spielberg knows how to make use of the entire screen to tell his story, and one scene really brought that home to me.

It's the one where Indy thinks Marian is dead, and meets Bellocq in a bar. They start talkin, tempers flare, Indy stands up, and so does everyone else in the room - all brandishing weapons. What I didn't see in full-screen, but DID see in wide-screen was that while Indy and Bellocq were talking, someone was passing a pistol under the table ... a great little touch!

Count me as a devoted wide-screen fan!

It's possible the subject of the film is also influencing its format sales. Sports are usually broadcast full-screen. Viewers might want a format that specifically recreates what they see watching the real thing.

Another thing that might be throwing off the stats are the completists, movie collectors who like a film so much they buy both DVD versions twice (once for watching, once for collecting) and the film on VHS as well.

Since it's a "home town" movie, there might be more of that collector enthusiasm for the film.

Incidentally, whoever came up with the movie "one sheet" poster might be having a sly joke with the numbers on the player's jerseys.

Good catch, Jeff...I don't think I've ever watched both versions of a movie and remembered enough about either to compare them like that.

Mr. Freen, we really need to find you an outdoors hobby! ;-)

I'm sure the good folks in Odessa will appreciate your benevolent interpretation of the sales numbers.

Just wondering...Do the "sophisticated people" have their browsers set so there's a black band at the top and bottom of their monitor screen while Blogging and reading other Blogs?

That's the most ridiculous B.S. I've ever heard.

Sorry Eric...you brought it up. Personally I will pick the full screen version any time I have a choice. I like to use all of my TV screen when I'm watching a movie.

Easy, big fella...look up the definition of "satire" in the dictionary and then take a deep breath! ;-)

I don't believe that I explicitly advocated a position one way or the other in the post. You can read into it what you wish. But since you've unequivocally stated your position, I'll just say that I like to see all of my movie when I watch it on TV.

It is interesting when you think about it. In what other medium are the consumers willing to live with only part of the story? Nevertheless, it's up to each person to decide if the parts that are missing are important or not.

I didn't even touch upon the issue of maintaining the artistic integrity of the moviemaker's original vision. Again, that's the consumer's call to make; we all have our own vision of what a movie is, and if it's not what the director originally put on film, so be it.

I am one movie viewer that prefers to see all the movie rather than use all the screen.

I was convinced when watching the pan and scan of Star Wars Phantom Menace and then the wide screen version.

In the pan and scan you literally miss all the light saber battles.

I am one of those snobs that almost always refuses to watch a pan and scan.

Well, I'll watch 'em, but I won't buy 'em, unless I don't have a choice. You'll still occasionally run across an older DVD that doesn't come in widescreen format.

Everyone needs to view the lambasting that The Turner Movie Classics channel gives Pan and Scan. Made a believer out of me.

Only widescreen enters my collection.

It's art. Would anyone frame the Mona Lisa with the top of her head and the bottom of her lap cropped off?

I think not.

Particularly for certain directors: Speilberg, Shyamalan, Burton, Ang Lee...fullscreen is an abomination to the way they've very deliberately set up every shot.

Only widescreen enters my collection.

Spoken like a true artist. ;-)

It does beg the question of who gets to make the decision about whether a particular film comes out in fullscreen version. You'd think that guys like Speilberg and Shyamalan have enough stroke with the studio to insist on widescreen only, if it's important enough to their "artistic vision." Is this one area where the bucks trump the vision?

I guess I need to get a better job so I can get a bigger fancy-pants teevee and get some of that there culture everybody's on about.

Or go and get my eyeballs lasered so I can see the tee-tiny strip of the movie that shows up on when I put in a DVD these days.

Either way, someone's gonna be reaching into my wallet for a few grand. It's sure rough getting old.

It definitely helps to view Widescreen on a big screen. Sitting up close helps, too. I used to hate Widescreen when I used to watch movies on a "regular" TV from several feet away. Like Scott said, all you see is a teeny-tiny strip of movie on a big black (empty) TV screen.

Pan & Scan was designed to compensate for that. Now that much larger televisions are available, Widescreen is coming into its own.

Widescreen became a totally different experience when I started watching films on my computer. You're about two feet away from the screen and with a large monitor, that makes all the difference. Getting popcorn in the keyboard is a bit of a problem, though.

"Is this one area where the bucks trump the vision?"

Not the only one, even for directors. Director David Twohy willingly sacrificed a lot of his vision for "The Chronicles Of Riddick" just so he could stay under the "PG-13" rating for a summer action movie. It wouldn't do to make an "R" rated movie that Moms wouldn't let their teen-agers see.

The result was the biggest (financial) flop of 2004. Twohy was given a $120 million production budget and made a movie that grossed $57.6 million in the US. Ouch.

Interestingly, another director took $30 million of his own money and made a movie that grossed $370.3 million in the US. Why? Because he wouldn't compromise his artistic vision. Then again, having an artistic vision helps, too.

So does having a great plot (probably "the greatest story ever told"), a lead actor who can actually act, an astoundingly talented supporting cast

...and an absolutely, positively, stunning female villain!

Director David Twohy willingly sacrificed a lot of his vision for "The Chronicles Of Riddick" just so he could stay under the "PG-13" rating for a summer action movie.

I can't imagine that the addition of a few more scenes of violence and/or sex could have saved that stinker.

Re: "The Passion," it's available in fullscreen. Not sure how to interpret that viz a viz the discussion about artistic integrity.

...and an absolutely, positively, stunning female villain!

I wondered how you'd work that in! ;-)

"Re: "The Passion," it's available in fullscreen. Not sure how to interpret that viz a viz the discussion about artistic integrity."

Easy. The director is making a personal sacrifice for all those unfortunate people who don't have a Samsung HPR8072 in their living room or Samsung SyncMaster 1100 on their desk. It's, ummm... part of Mel Gibson's OutReach program.

I'm glad "Passion" is available in both formats so everyone can experience the film depending on their individual preferences. Scott's point is a good one. On an average sized set in a regular living room, Widescreen isn't that enjoyable.

It's a very different movie in Full Screen, though my personal preference for "The Passion" is Widescreen on a big screen. Nothing beats the theater, though.

Nothing. Never.

Nothing beats the theater, though.

Well, sure. The popcorn alone makes that a no-brainer!

Speaking of sitting up close, I went over to my neighbor's ranch house* the other day, and his easy chair was 3 feet from the screen. Made me feel good knowing I'm not alone in this eyeball thing.

* Don't get any ideas -- it's one of those modular pre-fab box deals. This guy could afford a dang private theatre, but he's a skinflint like me. Cheaper to move the chair closer.